Why Yemen?

It is very difficult in a fake democracy to understand events as they unfold. “News” is reported to us by Orwell’s trained circus dogs. (Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip, but the really well-trained dog is the one that turns his somersault when there is no whip.)

On 9/11 I was utterly amazed that such a gigantic and nefarious plot could pulled off, but also had a sense of dissonance that our intelligence community, which could not prevent it, knew almost instantly who did it and where it originated.

So the scenario repeated with the underpants bomber. Intelligence officials knew about him, had been warned about him. His behavior was unusual – paying cash for a one-way ticket, no luggage … if only he could ignite his underwear as I can mine, we would have had a midair explosion. And instantly we know who he is, where his bomb was made, and who supervised his activities.

It might be that it is easier to track backward through events than to project forward. So it might seem logical that our news media, fed by the government, is relaying the truth to us about the Nigerian underwear situation.

That could well be. The news media might be serving a legitimate news function. The question is, why would they start now?

The Bush Administration, like that of Clinton before it, wanted to attack Iraq. Before 9/11, it just wasn’t plausible. After 9/11, anything was plausible. Some have taken the high correlation between post 9/11 activities and pre-9/11 desires, and intuited that 9/11 was a staged event. The problem with that scenario is that the government after 9/11 pointed us at Afghanistan, and only later did they attack Iraq, almost as if it were an afterthought. So I think it logical to conclude that they merely took advantage of public rage brought about by an event not of their making. One must never underestimate the potential for stupidity in high places.

Stupidity, yes, but also high intelligence. It’s a volatile cocktail. We are being shepherded by intelligent forces, though within those forces exists great hubris. I see in the underpants bombing three possibilities (or more – I am no more omniscient than anyone who reads this):

1) A fake scenario where a young man, whose father claimed was recently radicalized, was manipulated into the appearance of attempting to blow up an aircraft, not understanding that he had no chance of success. This staged event was then used as fodder to incite public opinion to allow our government to attack yet another country, this time, Yemen.

2) “Al Qaeda” operatives, being highly stupid themselves, wanted to give further credibility to the forces within our government who like attacking Arab countries. They like irritating the great beast.

3) Our government lies in wait, wanting to pounce, and only needing an event of any kind to justify predetermined activities.

It’s very hard to know, and we won’t know for weeks, months, years – if ever. What I conclude from these events is a little more abstract:

1) There have been no substantive changes in our ruling coalitions, even after the great groundswell of November, 2008. The same forces that propelled the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq are still there, and they are still ambitious;

2) News is not really news. It serves some other purpose, and there is a high correlation between the ambitions of the ruling coalition who sit behind our elected officials and the news that we are fed.

Therefore, the coalition has power over both elected officials and the news media. Picture a triangle of powerful forces – private wealth, government, and the news media. Most of us want to place the government atop that triangle, with power over the other two. Rotate the triangle so that private wealth sits atop both government and the media. To me, events make more sense if we remove the possibility of democratic governance from the picture.

If they are focusing our attention on Yemen, something is going on in Yemen unrelated to a plane that took off from Amsterdam on Christmas Day.

That’s the best that I can do without any real information at hand.

A Photo Essay

So a guy gets on a plane and tries to set his underwear on fire. Pretty scary, eh? Maybe 300 people would have died, but that’s child’s play for us. America pilots make that many corpses and text message at the same time. But the reaction is interesting, a stark contrast between self-image and reality.

Here’s how people in other countries see us:

Run your lives! Here’s a famous image – U.S. fighter jets hit a South Vietnamese village, and the resulting picture captured for all posterity the terror that we inflicted on others that day.

I don’t have to remind anyone that the reason the little girl is naked is because of napalm -it makes people tear off their clothing. When Dow first invented it, people were able to jump into lakes and rivers to get it off them. So the Dow boys came up with a new formula that adhered to the skin even after immersed in water. Good old American ingenuity.

That’s not how we see ourselves, of course.

Soldiers that return from our foreign adventures often tell tales of horror – that’s a lot of why the Vietnam war became so unpopular – returning soldiers. I would imagine that the military is pretty tight about that stuff these days – they do control the images we see. The picture of the little Vietnamese girl above would never be seen today- not in a newspaper or magazine, and certainly not TV. That was one of the lessons of the Vietnam War, first applied in Gulf War I – control what we see, control what we think. Here we are fighting two brutal wars with thousands upon thousands of civilian deaths, and people are hardly aware of it.

Images have power. Remember Abu Ghraib?

Pretty gruesome, but here is something important to realize about thought control in a society like ours: if it ain’t in pictures, it ain’t in people’s minds. Abu Ghraib, so far as I can tell, is the only imagery that has harmed the valiant war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Colombia, Yemen, and Pakistan. And Iran. Sudan … I lose track. When we are not actually fighting these wars, we are supplying the weapons.

Remember when the Israelis attacked Gaza a couple of years ago?

American bombs. The little girl is known as “collateral damage”.

Now forget for a minute about the dead kid. It’s the building behind … that is what is known as a “military target”, sometimes called a “terrorist hideout”. Usually when they blow up a building like that, they have a real target in mind. In this case, it was the little boy. He is what they call an “Al Qaeda operative”, possibly “second in command.”

This is more like it:

Yeah baby! These colors don’t run.

What’s that? A bomb on a plane? Good God -Obama, do something! Now we’re afraid to fly again! Xray underpants, keep anyone with dark skins off our planes!

Guess we ain’t so tough after all.

Why not just fly naked?

First came 9/11 and box cutters, and suddenly our pocket knives and nail clippers were contraband and taken from us. Then came the shoe bomber, and even though they have no technology than can tell them anything about what our shoes are made of, they make us take them off for scanning. Then came some chemicals smuggled aboard, and we suddenly had to give up our shampoo and bottled water before boarding.

The absurdity seems lost on everyone. The only purpose for all of this crap is, as George Carlin reminded us, to make white people feel safe when they fly. There is nothing that can be done to stop a person determined to create a tragedy for others. It’s all the illusion of safety, nothing more.

On Christmas Day, if news reports are to be believed, a guy managed to make his underpants into an exploding device. This, I thought, would make flying interesting and fun. We would all have to take our underpants off before boarding.

No such luck. Instead, flight attendants are now school marms with rulers making us keep our hands in our laps for the last sixty minutes of a flight and taking away our in-flight movies. And, they will probably soon be using scanners to peer through our clothing as we pass through the security area. That might sound like a fun job until we realize that Jerry Seinfeld was right … it is a leper colony out there. There are very few people that we want to see naked. Imagine having to look at your grandma and grandpa naked, eight hours at a time.

Can we get any stupider? I am afraid of the answer to that question.

Reflections …

Ah, December 31, a day for reflection. My problem is that I don’t reflect much. I never have in the past, and won’t start now. And I don’t do resolutions – those times in my life when I have made substantial changes, like quitting religion or smoking or starting exercise … had nothing to do with year ending or beginning. Quitting smoking, in fact, was a birthday present to myself, best one ever.

But I was thinking this AM as we drove relatives to the airport that during 2009 I really took enjoyment at one phenomenon and learned one thing.

The phenomenon is “medical marijuana.” I’m happy for the people who now have access to it for pain and nausea relief. But I’m laughing at all of the law ‘n order types who are quietly seething about it. You can hear the sphincters tighten every time a legal sale is made. A few of them may turn inside out, so great is the tightening. I love it!

Are more people smoking pot now than before? Who knows, who cares. Some sick people are comforted. Will medical marijuana laws lead to legalization? One can only hope. A lot of blacks and Latinos will be set free at last. The whole point of marijuana laws is repression of the underclasses.

In the mean time, libertarians and free-market types – take cheer. Commerce is percolating, Mary Jane is taking on new product forms, and sales are brisk. Markets are doing their magic.

I’m not a midnight toker myself. God knows I’m mellow enough as it is.

And then, the thing that I learned: While I still believe that the presidential election was stolen in 2004, I finally came to understand that it doesn’t matter. It didn’t matter in 2000 either. Obama has taught me that party politics are pointless, even counterproductive. Yes, Republicans care about being in power, as do Democrats. But it’s only about the perks of power, who gets to load up on friends in high places, which industries are favored. There’s nothing in it for us ordinary folks.

Just think of the presidential election it as the quadrennial football game between Harvard and Princeton. It is very important to some folks, but otherwise meaningless.

So then, it’s not a new phenomenon …

It is not only the fortunes of men which are equal in America: I do not believe there is a country in the world where, in proportion to the population, there are so few uninstructed and at the same time so few learned individuals. Primary instruction is within the reach of everybody; superior instruction is scarcely to be obtained by any.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, P 57

Triangulating on a Tuesday

I spent the day listening to talk radio today as I did my mundane work. Here’s what I learned:

Democrats are sure that Obama is not behind the rightward drift of the Administration, and are urging each other to get in touch with him to bring him back in the fold. The think it’s Rahm Emmanuel – they think Obama ought to fire him.

They’re pretty sure that he is playing chess, while others are playing checkers. They are actually playing Chutes and Ladders. He could be playing anything, and they would not figure it out.

They are worried that the Democrats will lose a bunch of seats in the 2010 midterms if they don’t come around. They haven’t yet realized that having the presidency, the 60 senate searts and the House has gotten them exactly zilch, so that losing Democratic seats will also mean … zilch.

They believe the whole thing about nasty Republicans filibustering, as if Democrats could not stop it if they wanted. They think that Lieberman is evil, and don’t understand why he is not punished for his behavior. They want Obama to call Joe and straighten him out.

Some think, with the “health care” bill, that the Democrats will pull a rabbit from the hat in the reconciliation process. One guy thinks that’s the whole game – that we are going to get real reform out of reconciliation, because the Democrats have been playing it close to the vest to keep AHIP and PhRMA from bombarding us with ads. They are pulling a fast one, those Democrats. That’s why the health lobbyists have been lined up at the White House while progressives can’t get a phone call returned.

A few more stoic souls called to remind the others that you don’t always get what you want in a deliberative process. These few don’t seem to realize that “compromise” usually means that you get something, and that getting nothing, or getting stuffed, is not quite the same.

And none took the time to ask why it is always the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that has to do the compromising.

It’s a wasteland out there. A vast wasteland.

Scary Times …

When Americans get scared, as will happen now that there was apparently a snake bomb on a plane (some dude tried to pull a Vincennes on us), several things happen.

1) Non-white people who choose to fly generally have seats open next to them, and so can fly in more comfort than the rest of us. (If they want to scare us off, they just make eye contact. However, they must be cautious, as that could cause patriots to go all “Let’s roll!” on them.)

2) White Americans go native and get all defensive and say things like “Why do they hate us?!” (They really don’t know – be patient with them.)

3) People die. They pull a Vincennes on us, we pull shock and awe on them. After a bunch of Saudis attacked us back then, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, and Denmark. This time it looks like we are going after Yemen, but Hugo’s number could be up too. And if I was Peruvian, I wouldn’t exactly be all comfortable. The whole world is vulnerable right now.

The Empire will strike back. War has been declared. Enemy to be decided soon.

Their grip on us will only tighten now …

I mentioned at some other website that the victory for AHIP and PhRMA in the “health care” battle has been total and complete, an awesome display of power.

However, President Obama says that he only got 95% of what he wanted. I wonder what the missing 5% is?

Here’s a prediction: Many people send their prescriptions up north to Canada to fill, to avoid cartel pricing down here in the States. I think this is technically illegal, but the pharmaceutical companies have had to endure this insult for fear of sparking a firestorm.

Now that they have what they want, now that there is no more to get from Washington, I predict that they will clamp down, and people will be prosecuted for filling prescriptions in Canada.

We’ve been flocked over once again …

I keep going back to Edward Bernays … the process I see around me now, with passage of the Senate health care bill, is much like soldiers inspecting bodies on the battlefield after the conflict and finishing off any that are still alive.

The victory achieved by AHIP and PhRMA is monumental, but won’t go down easy unless people are convinced that something good has happened. The usual suspects, the Democrats, are now starting to ridicule people who oppose the bill, which is pretty much in its final form now.

These passages are taken from Bernays’ writings in 1928. He is considered the father of modern public relations, and his early work was on the Committee on Public Information (The “Creel Committee”), that notorious group that led a reluctant American public into involvement in a war that was none of their concern. It was that group that first discovered the power of public relations -the ability of group leaders to shape and manage opinions.

Small groups of persons can, and do, make the rest of us think what they please about a given subject. But there are usually proponents and opponents of every propaganda, both of whom are equally eager to convince the majority.

The systematic study of mass psychology revealed to students the potentialities of invisible manipulation of motives which actuate man in the group. … Trotter and Le Bon, who approached the subject in a scientific manner, and Graham Wallas, Walter Lippmann, and others who continued with searching study of the group mind, established that the group has mental characteristics distinct from those of the individual, and is motivated by impulses and emotions which cannot be explained on the basis of what we know of individual psychology. So the question naturally arose: If we understood the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?

This general principle that men are very largely actuated by motives which they conceal from themselves is as true of mass as of individual psychology. It is evident that the successful propagandist must understand the true motives and not be content to accept the reasons that men give for what they do.

No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any divine or specially wise and lofty idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by group leaders in who it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and cliches and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.

Political campaigns today are all side shows, all honors, all bombast, glitter and speeches. These are for the most part unrelated to the main business of studying the public scientifically, or supplying the public with party, candidate, platform and performance, and selling the public these ideas and practices.

The important thing for the statesman of our age is not so much to know how to please the public, but how to sway the public. In theory, this education might be done by means of learned pamphlets explaining the intricacies of public question. In actual fact, it can be done only by meeting the conditions of the public mind, by creating circumstances which set up trains of thought, by dramatizing personalities, by establishing contact with the group leaders who control the opinions of their public.

The name of the book, “Propaganda“, doesn’t set well anymore. It was written before World War II, when the word still had a certain functionality without negative connotations. But Bernays lays out the strategy for selling public policy in the same manner that toothpaste and fashions are marketed. People form opinions in a pyramid, each group looking to the group above to know what to think about the important issues of the day. The Democrats are now looking up to their party leaders, and forming opinions about the health care bill accordingly.

The Sarah

Mark Moe stirred up a hornets’ nest with a recent Denver Post piece talking about “The Sarah”.

In more than 30 years of teaching, I’ve seen all sorts of student “types,” from the manic grade calculator, to the obsequious over- achiever, to the brilliant but dysfunctional slacker.

It recently dawned on me that one of the most predominant types — especially among female students — has as its avatar a political celebrity who has made a raucous re-entry onto the national stage. Therefore, I’m calling it The Sarah.

The Sarah has three basic characteristics: a lack of self-evaluative skills; a tendency to parrot whatever she thinks her immediate audience wants or needs to hear to gain validation, and the mistaken belief that popularity implies importance.

I’ve only been around 59 years, and throughout all that time I am at a loss to come up with a politician/celebrity as dumb as Palin. What does it say about us? As I remember it, “The Sarah” types were relegated to sitcoms, and ridiculed by the writers. These types included Betty White as Sue Ann Nivens on the Mary Tyler Moore Show, Lisa Kudrow’s Phoebe Bouffay in Friends, and Shelley Long as Diane Chambers on Cheers.

But never in real life have the truly stupid taken such prominence on the serious stage or in politics.

The Sarah also craves acceptance and validation from whomever happens to be her audience at the moment. Thus, The Sarah attends to information not to necessarily evaluate it critically, but so that she remembers to parrot it later to seem knowledgeable to the right people. Student essays are rife with this sort of confused regurgitation of lecture notes and secondary source material.

Many times The Sarah believes that repeating whatever the teacher or critic said is sufficient to earn a good grade, even if the context is wrong or, worse, its use is contradictory.

This tendency to parrot for validation with imperfect understanding of the information is one of the real Sarah’s hallmarks, seen in her many interview retractions, Facebook flip- flops, “death panel” rants, and her recent confusion over the cause of global warming.

If I say something that is obviously true about Palin at a conservative website, they rise to her defense. Her popularity transcends common sense. She’s hitting a nerve. What is it about her that so captivates them?

Finally, The Sarah believes that popularity implies importance. It’s been my experience that certain high school girls view popularity as a way to gain preferential treatment, the benefit of the doubt, and a kind of unspoken “rounding up” of their efforts, especially grades. They confuse popularity with the kind of status that can only be earned by hard work and actual accomplishments. Sarah herself is similarly confused. Her current media blitz and Facebook shout-outs, while bolstering her popularity with her base, aren’t nearly as important as finishing the hard work of governing Alaska would have been.

I am scratching my brain to come up with a political player in American history that was such an obvious buffoon. Spiro Agnew was a source of ridicule, as was Thomas Eagleton. But these were intelligent men. George Wallace certainly appealed to base instincts, but the man was nobody’s fool.

I know that others don’t see Palin as I do. Certainly she has gumption and a kind of flair, even if that flair is more celebrity than cerebral. But if The Sarah in her is dominant, and I think it is, then her rise in the serious business of governance seems more like a deluded teenage girl’s bid for acceptance to a position of authority for which she is neither ready nor qualified.

One blogger said that Palin was more likely aiming for a shot at a FOX News show than political office. That may be, but I cannot see even that having much success, as FOX viewers would shortly realize that there is not much there there.

I don’t recall in all my years either the right or the left reveling in someone so truly stupid.

P.S. No sooner did I put this up than did I remember “The Jane.” Fonda was a prominent figure during the Vietnam war, but I recall her on the Tonight Show one night claiming that the U.S. had no foreign assistance during our revolution. The audience laughed at her. Fonda was a sponge – an attention-craving Daddy-starved starlet with a fabulous body. She went from Roger Vadim, who made her a sex goddess, to Tom Hayden who turned her political activist, to Ted Turner to Christianity and every liberal cause in between.

I suppose you could say that Sarah is a right-wing Jane, though I feel obligated to defend Jane as more intelligent and courageous.